The notice of appeal, filed in Geneva by the United States trade representative, asserts that the country's position on Internet gambling is consistent with its longstanding trade agreements. The trade representative plans to file the substance of the appeal next week with the W.T.O.
"We believe the decision is deeply flawed," said Richard Mills, a spokesman for the trade representative.
The appeal stems from a case brought in 2003 by the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda. It argued that American trade policy that went into effect in 1995 permits Internet gambling within its borders.
A panel of three W.T.O. judges agreed, and last November they issued findings siding with Antigua and Barbuda.
The case has potentially significant implications for the growing business of Internet gambling, which allows people to place wagers from their computers. While the United States government has deemed such gambling illegal, about half of the roughly $7.6 billion lost in wagers last year came from American bettors, industry analysts said.
Online casinos based overseas would like to see the American market opened up and legitimized.
Under the preliminary decision reached by the W.T.O. panel, the United States could theoretically be forced to change its laws to allow Internet gambling, or face punishments.
Officials from the trade representative said that Antigua and Barbuda, as well as the W.T.O., were interfering with United States sovereignty.
In the agreement that went into effect in 1995 - the General Agreement on Trade in Services - the United States excluded Internet gambling from the types of commerce it would allow within its borders, trade officials said. Specifically, under the agreement, the country said it would exclude sporting, a designation that trade officials said the Clinton administration meant to include Internet gambling.
United States trade officials said the W.T.O. judges had not agreed thus far that the word sporting includes by definition the concept of Internet gambling.
The trade officials have argued that the country, above and beyond the letter of the trade agreement, is entitled to carve out trade exceptions on moral grounds.
nytimes.com
